The West Virginia Legislature has passed a bill requiring that a lessee deliver to the lessor, at no cost to the lessor, a properly executed and notarized release of a terminated, expired, or cancelled lease in recordable form within 60 days after the termination, expiration, or cancellation unless a different time is required by the lease. The bill is awaiting signature by West Virginia’s Governor and, if signed, will be effective May 31, 2020.
If the lessee fails to provide a timely release, the lessor may in good faith serve notice of the lessee’s failure to do so. The information that the lessor is required to include in the notice includes, but is not limited to, a statement that if the release of the lease or a written dispute of the purported termination, expiration, or cancellation of the lease is not received by the lessor from the lessee within 60 days from receipt of the notice, the lessor shall have the right to file an affidavit of termination, expiration, or cancellation of the lease. The notice must be sent to lessee, lessee’s assignee, all other lessors, and all other persons who have an interest in the leasehold estate or the oil and natural gas leased based upon the lessor’s reasonable examination of the public records. The lessor’s inability to afford notice to everyone to whom notice is to be given does not relieve a lessee of its obligation to respond to the notice. If a lessee disputes in good faith that the lease is terminated, expired, or canceled, the lessee must deliver a written dispute of the notice to the lessor detailing the good-faith basis for its disagreement not more than 60 days after receipt of the notice.
A lessor who has served a notice under this section and fails to receive a timely dispute from a lessee may record a notarized affidavit of termination, expiration, or cancellation of the lease in the office of the county clerk in the county or counties where the lands covered by the lease are situated. The county clerk of each county shall accept all such affidavits and shall enter and record them in the official records of that county and shall index each in the indices under the names, as they appear in the affidavit, of the original lessor, the original lessee, the lessor seeking the release, and the lessee identified in the affidavit. A lessor who files an affidavit must serve a copy of the affidavit upon the lessee, lessee’s assignee, all other lessors, and all other persons who have an interest in the leasehold estate or the oil and natural gas leased based upon the lessor’s reasonable examination of the public records.
The filing of an affidavit under this section does not constitute a modification of a lease and does not limit, waive, or prejudice any claim or defense of any party to the lease in law or in equity. A lessor’s decision not to use the provisions of this section is not evidence that a lease is still in effect.
On August 14, 2015, the Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals issued a decision in Armstrong v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., deciding that the plaintiffs may not pursue an action seeking lease forfeiture based on the nonpayment of oil and natural gas royalties absent an explicit lease provision allowing them to do so. The plaintiffs alleged that Chesapeake failed to pay royalties owed on oil and natural gas production after the plaintiffs notified the company of their acquisition of the property from the former lessors. The court found, however, that absent a clause in the lease allowing the lessor to declare a forfeiture for the nonpayment of royalties, nonpayment merely gives rise to an action for damages and not cancellation.
The Pittsburgh Business Times reports that Allegheny County has reached a deal with Range Resources and Huntley & Huntley as to leasing the oil and gas under Deer Lakes Park in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald announced the county will receive $4.7 million in bonus payments, $3 million for the Park Improvement Fund, and a 18% royalty. He also announced that operations in Deer Lake Park are prohibited by the terms of the lease. The deal must be approved by Allegheny County Council.
As reported by legal news website Law360, a Pennsylvania bill was approved by the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee that would amend the Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act of 1979 (GMRA) and will move to the House floor. House Bill 1684 would amend the GMRA to clarify the definition of the minimum royalty payable under an oil and gas lease. The GMRA already sets the minimum threshold at one-eighth, but does not clearly define how royalties should be calculated. House Bill 1684 would prevent operators from reducing royalty payments by the costs of production if the reductions would result in a payment of less than a one-eighth royalty. Supporters of the bill say that landowners should be protected from the possibility of unfair deductions and calculations of their royalty payments by oil and gas operators. Opponents of the bill argue that the bill violates both the state and federal constitutions by changing the terms of leases already in existence and that the bill would result in excessive litigation, which would not ultimately benefit the landowners that the bill seeks to protect.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently held in Southwestern Energy Production Company, et al. v. Forest Resources, LLC, et al. that an “assignment back” clause that results in a lessor’s net royalty being less than one-eighth violates the Pennsylvania Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act (GMRA). The GMRA requires oil and gas leases to provide a minimum one-eighth royalty. Under the terms of a lease, the lessor in Southwestern Energy was to receive the statutory minimum one-eighth royalty. The parties subsequently amended the lease, modifying the royalty provision so that the lessor retained 50% of the royalty and assigned the remaining 50% of the royalty to the lessee to pay for marketing costs. Although the court found little authority regarding the technical requirements for compliance with the GMRA, it found that the intent of the statute was to clearly protect the lessor. It reasoned that the GMRA applies to both leases and other agreements, including amendments, and that it compels a “guarantee” of at least a one-eighth royalty. Accordingly, it concluded that a lease that contains an assignment back clause that does not guarantee the statutory minimum royalty violates the GMRA.
On November 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the Superior Court’s decision in Caldwell v. Kriebel Resources Co., which held that an oil and gas lease does not contain an implied duty to develop all strata. The Superior Court opinion was previously covered here.
On November 18, 2013, the Third Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling out of the Middle District of Pennsylvania in favor of Shell Western Exploration and Production, LP (Shell) in a case captioned as George W. Linder, et al. v. SWEPI, LP, a/k/a Shell Western Exploration and Production, LP; Case No. 13-1674 (3d Cir. November 19, 2013). The plaintiffs conveyed their oil and gas rights for 338 acres to Shell’s predecessor-in-interest via a lease (the Lease). The Lease had a primary term of ten years and, by its terms, would continue in effect past the primary term if productive activity continued on the leasehold. Shell’s predecessor-in-interest unitized an area of 526.94 acres, which included 137.81 acres of the plaintiffs’ 338-acre leasehold. The primary term of the Lease expired in September 2010, but the parties agreed that the Lease continued in effect because Shell continued to engage in productive activity on the leasehold. However, the plaintiffs demanded a delay rental payment for the non-unitized portion of the Lease based on the Lease’s Unitization Clause which provided: “If the total unitized Leasehold acreage is less than 50 percent of the total Leasehold acreage, Delay Rental will continue to be paid on the non-unitized acreage.” Shell agreed to pay the delay rentals for the non-unitized acreage. Both parties then changed their positions a number of times as to whether the Lease remained in effect for the 200.19 acres that were never unitized. The plaintiffs ultimately filed a lawsuit in state court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Lease expired as to the non-unitized acreage. Shell removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and moved for summary judgment in its favor. The District Court granted summary judgment finding that, as a matter of law, the Lease did not expire with respect to the non-unitized acreage.
The plaintiffs then appealed to the Third Circuit with their principal argument being that “upon the occurrence of unitization of less than 50 percent of the entire leasehold, there are as a matter of law two leasehold parcels.” The Third Circuit affirmed the ruling of the District Court holding that the plaintiffs’ position is an “untenable reading of the Lease.” In so holding, the Third Circuit relied upon the “obvious reading” of the Lease terms finding that the Lease continues in effect while operations are conducted on the leasehold, and the Lease refers to the leasehold as a single, undivided entity that is 338 acres in size. Moreover, the Third Circuit quickly dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that the Lease’s Unitization Clause supports their interpretation. In this regard, the Third Circuit held that this language does nothing to separate the unitized and non-unitized acreages—rather, it simply obligated Shell to pay a delay rental on the non-unitized acreage. Additionally, citing to Pennsylvania case law, the Third Circuit held that Shell’s failure to timely pay the delay rental did not constitute a material breach of the Lease because a brief delay in payment where the Lease contains no “time-is-of-the-essence” provision does not amount to a material breach. Lastly, the Third Circuit held that Shell did not surrender the non-unitized acreage by initially agreeing in a letter to do so, because the Lease’s surrender clause requires the recording of a Surrender of Lease as a necessary prerequisite to the legal surrender of any rights. Accordingly, based on what it viewed as the obvious interpretation of the Lease provisions, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Shell.